Law

Response 1-Chapter 1  4
The first response in this study is on whether the public in the United States makes a distinction between the various arms of the criminal justice system namely the police, courts and the corrections. As an introduction, this study asserts that despite intensive studies in the area of criminal justice system, there are no comprehensive studies that draw comprehensive conclusion on the public knowledge of the extensive network that constitutes the criminal justice system. However, consistent findings from research by scholars in the different faculties of criminology in the United States suggest that a majority of the United States citizens have minimal knowledge on the system. The majority receive their knowledge and perceptions about the criminal justice systems through the media and movies which may not necessarily reflect the actual truth on the ground (McNeely, 1995 p. 1). The implication of this statement is that a majority of people in the public are to a great extent ignorant of the structures and organizations of the criminal justice system. Fundamental to note is that this trend is replicated in many of the developed countries and is even grimmer in the developing countries. A report authorized by the UK Home Office by the Research development  Statistics Directorate in 2002 replicated statistics that showed extremely low information by the public about crime and the general structure and operations of the criminal justice system (Indermaur  Roberts, 2005). The worst informed on the functions and operations of the criminal Justice Systems hold negative views about the systems while those that are considerably informed are more confident with most aspects of the Justice System. In particular, the public have gross misperceptions about the extent and nature of crime, court procedures and outcomes as well as the rates of parole and imprisonment. Despite the lack of credible information about the criminal justice systems, the public hold and maintain strong views about justice and crime issues which in a great way influence the way law and public policy are shaped. The public view has an effect on the government spending priorities which are undoubtedly influenced by the public beliefs in issues to do with crime.  A great deal of misperceptions by the public concerning the criminal justice system include wrong perception of increasing crime rates,  rates of violent crimes and poor perception on conviction and imprisonment rates. The public misperceptions generate into dissatisfaction with the fundamental aspects of the CJS and this produces serious repercussions of undermining the authority and legitimacy of justice administration. It is prudent to note that general ignorance about justice issues fuels ignorance about the system as a whole and as such, many citizens are unable to draw a clear line between the various arms that are concerned with the fulfillment of duties within the criminal Justice systems. As such, failures by the police, corrections or the courts are interpreted publicly as failure in the whole justice system. This has more so been aggravated by an ambitious but inaccurate media that rarely draws the clear difference between the roles of the police, the courts or the correction facilities.

Response 2- Chapter 2  3
In this second response, an attempt will be made to assess the response of the legislatures pertaining computer crime and how the internet revolution has altered the pornography debate. As early as 1995, the NIJ (National Institute of Justice) had categorized several acts as constituting computer crimes (Hollinger  Lonn 2000). An electronic conference held in that year from July to October went into in-depth details into the nature of crimes that could be categorized as computer crimes. Fifteen years down the line, the range of activities categorized as constituting computer crimes are very wide and far reaching. This has been precipitated by the computerization of virtually all aspects of human life. Some of the crimes that has over time been identified as constituting to computer crime includes unauthorized modification of software, pornography, theft, tax crimes, fraud, counterfeiting (stock certificates, drivers licenses, birth certificates, diplomas, checks, marriage certificates etc), gambling offences, drug crimes, financial crime s, altering data such as medical records, arrest records, financial records, payroll deductions and court dispositions), stealing telephone access codes and many others (Carter, 1995). Due to the wide range of computer crimes, it has become necessary over time to put down legislation necessary to curb such offences. One problem that has faced lawmakers in attempting to enact laws and regulations in this area concerns the complexity and the networking that computer revolution has accorded. For instance, the fact that a computer soft file can be retrieved and transported from one computer to the other without necessarily moving the original document requires a new definition of theft. When an individual hacks into a computer system and merely looks around this constitutes a crime which may by definition dilute the traditional meaning of a crime considering that there is rarely any physical interference or interruption of the computer (McEwen, 1995).

According to Standler (2002) the statistics available on computer crime may not be reliable largely because many victims do not realize nor report these crimes. In addition, the losses incurred are difficult to calculate considering that some of the crimes basically targets information. There is a considerable consensus between computer scientist and law enforcement personnel that the numbers of computer crimes has risen sharply in this decade and have also significantly increased in sophistication.  To protect the public against wanton cyber crimes, legislatures in the US have instituted a number of legislative policies to fight such crimes. The most fundamental is the establishment of the computer crime section which also deals with intellectual property. The section is under the department of Justice and is guided by the different laws and regulations instituted to specifically address cyber crimes (Department of Justice, 2010).

The revolution of computers and the internet has without doubt greatly affected the traditional debate on pornography. Traditionally, the debate rotated around restricting access especially to minors. Considering the current statistics on computer and internet usage in the US, access to pornographic sites by minors via the internet has undoubtedly increased and the debate now is more on structuring morals since restricting access is now almost out of  the possibility range.

Response 3- Chapter 3 4
This is a response to the extent with which federalization of state crimes cut across traditional ideological values depicted in the due process model and the crime control model. To start with, a great deal of debate in the circles of the American Justice system has been on the cut line between federal crimes, state crimes and the rationale of crime federalization. In some cases, the overlap between the duties of the two organs of law enforcers have thrown the public into confusion over who exactly should take charge of particular crimes (Willard, 1998). Generally, federal crimes in the US constitute crimes made illegal by the US federal legislation or crimes that occur on any US federal property. Interstate and international crimes are examples of federal crimes. Traditionally, the role of public safety is supposed to be the role of state and local authorities. When the federal agencies comes in and assumes the role supposed to be played by these organs, conflict of interest is bound to emerge and a consequent public image that regards state and local authorities as inferior to the federal agencies. The FBI is essentially at the fore front in all federal offenses. It is to be noted here that the original categorization of federal offenses (federalization) was on the federal government to be providing assistance to local agencies in crimes of significant national concern. Over time however, the list of crimes that have been federalized have increased manifold, and as some analysts observe, there has been too much federalization even in unnecessary situations. According to Meese (1998) a great deal of federalization has been reactive and political rather than from the actual requirement of criminal justice policy. The debate on the dichotomy between the participation of state and federal jurisdiction lines has in the past focused on the necessity for having the two forms of law enforcement agencies.

When federalization of crimes is observed in the mirror of the two models constructed by Herbert Packer, it is not easy to make a clear cut difference as to whether the process fits the crime control model that exemplifies the repression of crime as the most fundamental function of the CJS or the due process model which views the fundamental requirement of the CJS to be that of providing the due process.  As observed above, a great deal of federalization of crimes has been reactive in the past. As such, most of the crimes federalized over the period have been based on the systems reactions to crimes that had already occurred and therefore were aimed at repressing the reoccurrence of such crimes by all means possible. Looked at this way, one can argue that the crime control model has in a great way shaped crime federalization in the US. Further, the criminal justice system has had to contend with strain due to rapid increase of crimes and as such, the due process model which seeks to maintain the liberties of the defendants until proven guilty has appeared to be rather slow and not assisting the cause of overcrowding (Smith, 1998).  Generally, population pressures and lack of resources within the CJS have almost unconsciously led to the adoption of the crime control model in all instances of federalization. It is to be mentioned here however that the primary purpose of the US criminal Justice System is not only to speedily deal with crime as depicted in the crime control model but also and more importantly to ensure the fulfillment of justice in all cases within its jurisdiction. One can therefore conclude that the overall philosophy of federalization has been guided by the due process model though the real implementation adopts the crime control model.

Response 4-Chapter 44
This response will analyze why crime control advocates oppose drug courts while the due process proponent support the courts. First, one of the most fundamental responses by the judicial institutions in the US regarding the war on drugs has been the establishment of specialty drug courts.  In their creation, they were explicitly envisaged as a positive response to the 1980 proliferation of caseloads and overcrowding in prison facilities which were a consequence of the intensive war on drugs during the period. Their central role was and still is primarily to provide a safety mechanism, for the ominous cycle constituting incarceration-release-recidivism of low level drug users that filled the US prisons instead of focusing on the distributors and dealers that initiated and facilitated drug supply and use in America (Miller, 2009). The courts are designed so that they intervene and divert offenders so that they receive treatment before imprisonment.

The proponents of drug courts supports the due process model of crime and argue that the drug courts are a tremendous opportunity for drug policy especially in shaping social norms in regard to addiction and incarceration. For such proponents, the courts should not only play the crucial role of correction but should facilitate the shaping of the lives of defendants through the provision of necessary treatment and rehabilitation options. In addition, proponents argue that the traditional continued arrest, conviction and incarceration of drug users pose acute managerial problems emanating from an overloaded criminal justice system. In addition, proponents argue that the court system ensures that the judges and other players in the judicial system are actively involved in providing therapeutic aid other than the traditional passive role of passing sentences even to low cadre users. Further, proponents view the establishment of the drug courts as promoting social cohesion where the criminal justice system participants namely the judge, prosecutor, defendant and the defender adopt  non-traditional positions where they cooperate in a treatment team aimed at rehabilitation rather than engage in an adversarial encounter of determining guilt or innocence.

Opponents of drug courts on the other hand argues that the introduction of the special court drugs defeat the logic of law in dealing with crimes and have interfered with positive liberty where individuals ought to be given the freedom to decide on what they want to do (Berlin, 1958, p. 7). For these crime control advocates, an individual should be left alone to make decisions, which if they amount to crime should be fully repressed through the instituted legal mechanisms. Opponents also argue that treatment without necessary punishment and treatment does little or nothing at all to ameliorate the prevalence of drug use. In addition, the case of the cost of these courts and the treatment options has been of concern to the opponents who argue that this arrangement is too costly and exert unnecessary expense to the tax payers who are already overburdened by the tax regime.

Response 5-Chapter 54
In this response, an analysis will be done to establish the existence of a danger that prosecutors may seek continuances. As applied in the criminal justice system, continuances refer to the postponement of a trial, hearing or other court proceeding at the request of a party or both parties in a court dispute. The judge can also issue a continuance for his own reasons which he does not necessarily require to inform the parties. It is to be noted here that the United States Criminal Justice System admits that litigation delay increases litigation expenses and anxiety and increases the likelihood of undermining the noble objectives of the justice system. In addition, it also asserts that criminal litigation should not take longer than necessary in propagating through the system. It also asserts that continuances should be few and where necessary, good reasons should be provided and a written request is made and resolved by a judge. In allowing or denying a continuance, concern should be the ultimate judicial goal of justice as opposed to speedy disposition of cases and therefore acknowledges the need for continuances when and where necessary. When allowed, continuances have the direct impact of delaying resolution of disputes (Yeazell, 1998). Although requesting continuances in some case is vital in order to ensure that both parties are not disadvantaged, the same avenue has in the past been misused by prosecutors who fail to be efficient during trials preparation. Utilizing the loophole that does not limit the number of continuances in cases, the avenue is open to misuse as prosecutors who fail to gather enough resources for their prosecution continually looks for reasons that warrant continuances. In response to the question, the chances of prosecutors seeking illegal continuances abound greatly. Despite continuing reforms and call for improving the efficiency of the judicial processes, personality issues and inefficiency are bound to affect the efficiency of individual prosecutors who then rely on their experience of the systems to seek continuances to cover for their inefficiencies.

Response 6-Chapter 62
The concluding response will be on whether state attorneys should be given authority to supervise locally elected district attorneys. To begin with, it is prudent to analyze some of the express authorities bestowed on state attorneys virtue of their positions. Every state has the responsibility of defining the authority and responsibilities of state attorneys which should be in line with the federal guidelines on the duties and responsibilities of such office holders. For instance,  state attorneys in Illinois have their primary duties identified as working with police in making decisions on preferential charges against offenders and also to prosecute offenders in manners and practice that best represents the objectives of the criminal justice system primarily the observance of justice (US Legal, 2010).

On the other hand, the district attorneys are elected public officials whose duties are defined by the states law. Primarily the district attorneys manage the prosecutors office at the district court levels, file criminal charges or investigate crimes in cooperation with other law enforcement agencies within the jurisdiction of a legal district.

In response to the question above, giving state attorneys authority to supervise district attorneys may seem the right thing to do in consideration of their jurisdiction and powers. However, it may pose considerable conflict of interest especially considering that each officers duties are well defined. When an individual is given authority over the other, the initial presumption is that the person bearing authority has more power to lord over the former and this may not necessarily be the case in this situation. At best, state attorneys should be allowed to cooperate with the district attorneys in a more team work spirit in prosecuting cases and fulfilling the other duties required by the law. Further, the consideration that District attorneys are elected directly by the people may not augur well with the electorate if their candidates have to be unduly responsive to parties unfamiliar to the district jurisdiction. The electorate should be allowed to retain their powers in gauging the performance of their district attorneys and retain their power to vote them out when necessary. This does not however imply that district attorneys should not be responsive in cases that require cooperation with the state attorneys.

Favorite Topic
The topics presented in this course have been in-depth, interesting and worthwhile informative. Particularly, the topic on the law and crime came out as of most interest to me especially as portrayed through the high profile cases involving celebrities such as Michael Jackson and Kobe Bryant. The intricacies between civil and criminal proceedings were a worthwhile piece of information as well as the information on the various processes that are followed in court case proceedings. I enjoyed the topic due to its step by step presentation of facts that are fundamental in laying a foundation in any law oriented profession.